The key measure for success is usually the ball-in-play time.
Previously, the target was to get to 60 minutes, but that has proved very difficult to achieve.
Even in Qatar, with all that added time, Fifa could only get up to 58:03 of actual football.
So how does the 2026 World Cup compare?
First off, the automatic six minutes applied for hydration breaks has been removed. This is effectively not part of a regular match time.
The average length of matches at this World Cup is 96:08 – just over six minutes additional across both halves.
In Qatar, it was 102 minutes 43 seconds for the first round of games – more than double the stoppage time.
Yet in Russia it was 96 minutes 54 seconds, only slightly higher that this summer’s edition.
All three tournaments had four on-field VAR reviews.
So, games are shorter at this World Cup than at either of the previous two.
But is this strategy backed up by the average ball-in-play time?
In Russia, it was 54 minutes 50 seconds. With so much stoppage time, it should be no surprise that went up to 58 minutes eight seconds in Qatar
There has been a small reduction to 57 minutes 22 seconds at this World Cup. Does that mean it has not quite worked.
The best way to truly judge it might be to look at the relative ball-in-play time.
What percentage of the length of a match is football being played?
That is where we see this World Cup is the most effective – 59.38% of the match time has seen the ball in play.
Qatar, with the games being so long, was below this at 56.86% and Russia at 56.25%.
It is early days for Collina’s masterplan, but so far it appears to be working.
Whether the same impact can last 380 Premier League matches might be more of a challenge.
